Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by martyb on Friday August 11, @02:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the hurry-up-and-stop dept.

Google is struggling to discuss the recent diversity memo controversy internally:

Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, canceled a scheduled all-hands staff meeting—moments before it was scheduled to begin—meant to address concerns over a controversial essay published by former employee James Damore.

In an email to staff, Pichai explained that questions from employees had been leaked and that, in some cases, specific employees' identities were revealed, exposing them to harassment and threats. Instead of today's large-scale meeting, which was to be livestreamed to Google's 60,000 employees worldwide, smaller groups will meet sometime in the future.

"We had hoped to have a frank open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally," Pichai said in the email.

Also at CNET.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences 155 comments

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Alphabet Inc.'s Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company's diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley. James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." He said he's "currently exploring all possible legal remedies."

[...] Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo "violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace." But he didn't say if the company was taking action against the employee. A Google representative, asked about the dismissal, referred to Pichai's memo.

[...] After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google's new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore's views and reaffirmed the company's stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.

"We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company," Brown said in the statement. "We'll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul."

Source: Bloomberg.

[Update: Apparently Julian Assange has offered James Damore a job, saying that "Censorship is for losers". - Fnord666]

Previously: Googler's Memo on Culture of Diversity Extremism Goes Viral Inside Google


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 11, @02:17PM (9 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:17PM (#552284) Journal

    He seems to be saying that his social engineering efforts might be endangered if the public knows about them? Some employees have been named? Mmmm. Whatever. Oh yeah, transparency. That's a good thing, unless it threatens my own plans, then transparency ain't so good.

    --
    This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Friday August 11, @02:32PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday August 11, @02:32PM (#552295) Journal

      Let's not play dumb here. If your name is linked to any sort of controversy opinion online, you're likely to receive daily death threats, pizzas 'n' Qurans, get doxed, have your employer called (not really applicable here), and other unsavory stuff. Theoretically, if you anger the wrong person you could become a real target for real harm or assassination, but there are lot of bluffing keyboard warriors out there and much bigger fish to fry anyway. Non-transparent this move may be, but most inner workings of corporations aren't public... until a few employees revolt.

      --
      [SIG] 04/14/2017: Soylent Upgrade v13 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @05:30PM (3 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @05:30PM (#552449) Journal

      Oh yeah, transparency. That's a good thing, unless it threatens my own plans, then transparency ain't so good.

      You seem to be implying a double-standard by Google here. Like they were totally fine with the first leak.

      That's crazy talk! They're in the middle of a gender pay gap investigation with the DOE! [wired.com] Then this dumbass posts that women get less raises because of their gender!

      Pretty sure they're opposed to all the leaks...

      • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday August 11, @07:40PM

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday August 11, @07:40PM (#552528) Homepage Journal

        Thank you.gif

      • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday August 11, @09:14PM (1 child)

        by slinches (5049) on Friday August 11, @09:14PM (#552589)

        Then why didn't they publicly fire the guy that leaked the memo instead of the guy that wrote it?

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @07:22PM

          by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @07:22PM (#552933) Journal

          Because they don't want to solve anything. It's a power grab with diversity as the excuse and tool. In Soviet union they also had political commissars, informants, etc.

          When the people of Iran got fed up with their Shah. Theocrats (Islamist's) and the Left worked together to overthrow the government. Once it succeeded the Islamist's continued to kill the Left as a response to their help. There are similarities here. Once diversity people has served their usefulness to power grab. They are not likely to be treated well.

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday August 11, @07:15PM (2 children)

      by darkfeline (1030) on Friday August 11, @07:15PM (#552513) Homepage

      This is an internal meeting. Whether or not the meeting was canceled doesn't affect public transparency.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 11, @08:26PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @08:26PM (#552560) Journal

        Uh-huh. Internal meetings happen all the time. "Don't discuss this with ANYONE, this is confidential!" And, before the meeting is even over, spouses and special others already have all the details. And, personally, unless I actually agree that the meeting should be secret, I don't feel bound by any of that confidentiality bullshit. And, obviously, no one else does either.

        --
        This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @09:26AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @09:26AM (#552809)

          That's what I thought, too. First time that they said that Runaway was caught in the wrong bathroom, but appropriately dressed, I thought, well, OK, we will just keep this internal. But then it happened a bunch of more times, and I thought, no way we can keep a lid on this! And finally, there was the police chase, the public exhibitionism, that everyone in Texarakansas saw on the evening news, and I thought, who am I to try to keep this secret anymore? So, sorry Runaway, we can't keep you identity a secret anymore! May god have mercy on your sole.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Friday August 11, @02:41PM (28 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday August 11, @02:41PM (#552299) Journal

    Yes, I'm going to whine about this story.
    No, not because I think it's taking SN in a "wrong" direction, or because it's not "techy" enough or any such thing.

    I'm whining about the story because this is a charged issue which will result in many comments, which you could just as well read elsewhere.
    (Including this one comment! :)

    SN doesn't have to run this story. If we do, then -- just like everywhere else on the web -- it will be heavily discussed, but add little of value.
    Most folks aren't going to change their minds, insightful +5 comments will not challenge your comfort zone, some folks will be vocal on one or another issue, but in the end, it doesn't really add anything to discuss it here on SN as opposed to elsewhere.

    Basically, this is 1. genuinely news, and 2. "comment" bait.

    If there was a spin on the story that would help give direction to the discussion, that might be interesting. But like this?
    Arthur T Knackerbread can find the "insightful +5" comments elsewhere.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 11, @02:52PM (2 children)

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday August 11, @02:52PM (#552307) Journal

      Well I just submitted a bunch of science stories. Go comment on them when they come out.

      --
      [SIG] 04/14/2017: Soylent Upgrade v13 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:54PM (#552460)

        Sadly there is just not much to comment on with most actual techie / science articles. Just the way it is.

      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday August 11, @06:39PM

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday August 11, @06:39PM (#552487) Journal

        Thanks! I appreciate science stories (as well as political stories and others).
        I will comment if I'm around and have something worth adding (in my opinion, that is ;-).

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:07PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:07PM (#552330)

      And where else would you suggest people discuss things? The reality is that just general discussion on the internet is in a pretty sad state. You end up with opposite extremes of Reddit which is completely useless for discussion of any event that could in any way be tied in any possible way to anything political largely because of manipulation, censorship, etc. On the other extreme you have sites like Voat which allow completely open discussion like the Reddit of a decade ago, but ends up being similarly useless for discussion due to its demographic composition. I enjoy discussion on Soylent largely because there's a wide array of viewpoints all engaging in discussion in an at least somewhat respectful manner, there's no censorship of anybody, and the average level of knowledge is higher than the average across most other sites.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Sulla on Friday August 11, @03:18PM (8 children)

        by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:18PM (#552345)

        There is a difference in how articles are discussed across the various web platforms and soylent does bring something unique (i suppose the other green-site clones do as well) to the table. Here we have a fairly intelligent community of people with vastly different views that are much more likely than the general population to post citations for their views. I might post about this on /pol/, but how I might do it there would be vastly different than I do on soylent. I could post about it on some mainstream news site with discussion at the bottom, but that is nothing but standard waving.

        If people aren't interested in an article they could just not read it or respond to it. An article like this being posted will not cause a real article that is tech related to not be posted.

        • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday August 11, @05:51PM (7 children)

          by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday August 11, @05:51PM (#552458) Journal

          And where else would you suggest people discuss things?

          ArsTechnica, The Register, Slashdot, Reddit, HackerNews, Tweakers.
          For example.

          If people aren't interested in an article they could just not read it or respond to it. An article like this being posted will not cause a real article that is tech related to not be posted.

          True. What this article will do, is gather comments. Like mine, right now.
          Part of my objection is indeed based on an assumption that people will not provide an infinite amount of comments.
          I should have made that explicit, let me try to do so now:

          <Assumption>
          Site visitors only comment sparingly. There are no hard bounds, and particular stories may engage them more, but....
          if they have commented "a lot" (whatever that may mean for an individual site visitor), then they will be reluctant to comment more.
          This assumed effect is even stronger for commenting on new/other stories.
          </Assumption>

          It's a big assumption and I don't have anything to back it up except anecdotal evidence (me).
          *IF* other people indeed act like this, then a story like this, which gains a lot of comments that can easily be found elsewhere on the net, has a negative effect on the number of comments other stories will receive.
          If this assumption is false, then I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of your quote: that there is no downside to posting a story like this.
          I suspect there is, though, based on generalising from a way-too-small population (containing: me).

          • (Score: 2) by Tangaroa on Friday August 11, @09:07PM (1 child)

            by Tangaroa (682) on Friday August 11, @09:07PM (#552585) Homepage

            ArsTechnica, The Register, Slashdot, Reddit, HackerNews, Tweakers.

            Hacker News is censored. They banned me for saying that Ed Snowden had not released evidence of the NSA listening in on the content of everyone's phone calls when he hadn't according to every news article about him. The news said the NSA was saving metadata, not the complete conversations, but HN had a pro-Snowden party line to push and could not have it interrupted by appeals to accuracy.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12, @06:25AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @06:25AM (#552770) Journal
              And I got banned from Ars Technica for going skeptical on a front page global warming story. There's something to be said for sites that don't ban you for having the wrong opinion.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12, @06:21PM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @06:21PM (#552920) Journal
            I thought about it and I just don't see the problem, unless comment volume gets high enough that the comments are unreadable. For me, that would probably start coming around 500, but obviously it would be much less for other without my particular tolerances for walls of text.

            The key problem for me is that you're calling for the reduction in engaging stories. I think that alone makes this idea a non-starter. It's not a good idea to make the site less interesting. Second, engaging stories pull in more readers. While a reader might, with the advent of more engaging stories, comment less on the less engaging stories, there are more people overall to comment. I think that will result in more comments overall on stories for good or bad.

            I think this particular story has a lot of merit because it details not just an important business's tribulations, but a potential sea change in the social dynamics of the high tech industry. Way back in the mid 2000s after Google had IPOed, it could do no wrong. On the Green Site, every little bit of information was blown way out of proportion with posters peering at the tea leaves and seeing their favorite science fiction fantasy. Somewhere along the years, the bloom fell off the rose and Google just became another big tech company though still with some interesting ideas.

            This new stuff is crazy with apparently a fair number of mid-level managers taking it upon themselves to police their employees, some apparently doing little else, and maintaining blacklists of employees they wouldn't take on. The key problem with all this is that these managers are generating a considerable amount of liability for Google. And where's HR in all this? Handling bigotry behavior in employees is one of their key reasons for being. Regular managers shouldn't be touching that at all.

            What I think brings this from a company problem to an industry problem is that a manager has allegedly bragged [hotair.com] about circulating these blacklists outside of the company.

            I remember engineering manager Adam Fletcher bragging about how (a) he’ll never work with people like me (which he refers to as “hostile voices”), and (b) how people like me were being blacklisted *outside of Google* (I assume because he and others like him were using gossip to coordinate industry-wide blacklists). Note that Adam’s position is widely-shared instead of reprimanded by management. Paul Cowan…also got away with posting comments in support of that.

            Among other things, blacklisting and hiring collusion between employers are both federal-level illegal (I think they're civil not criminal though) and Google has already been caught before, along with Apple and some other high tech firms, engaging in hiring collusion (though that time it was "no poach" agreements to avoid bidding for each others' top talent). So that's an indication that something is deeply wrong that a manager would brag about such an activity when the company was already under scrutiny and eventually fined significant money for the activity.

            But if the allegation is true, it means that there's a network out there spanning multiple businesses, not just some out of control Google bureaucrats.

            • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12, @10:15PM

              by FakeBeldin (3360) on Saturday August 12, @10:15PM (#552994) Journal

              1. Thanks for your insightful comment (no mod points currently)
              2. Thanks for proving me wrong with the on-topic part of your comment, that I hadn't read elsewhere :)

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 15, @12:58PM (2 children)

            by urza9814 (3954) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 15, @12:58PM (#554238) Journal

            <Assumption>
            Site visitors only comment sparingly. There are no hard bounds, and particular stories may engage them more, but....
            if they have commented "a lot" (whatever that may mean for an individual site visitor), then they will be reluctant to comment more.
            This assumed effect is even stronger for commenting on new/other stories.
            </Assumption>

            Eh, in my case 95% of the comments that I type get deleted instead of being posted, but the ones that actually do get posted seem to come in spurts. I'll post a lot one week, then nothing at all the week after. So I think the act of posting something makes me more likely to actually post the next one. Inertial engagement ;)

            • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday August 15, @08:03PM (1 child)

              by FakeBeldin (3360) on Tuesday August 15, @08:03PM (#554405) Journal

              Also on other stories? For me it tends to focus for one story, but I get all my inertia to posting back once I switch stories.

              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 16, @12:13PM

                by urza9814 (3954) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 16, @12:13PM (#554670) Journal

                Yeah, the inertia can last up to a week or so for me. Although I might just be more likely to comment on similar topics...haven't thought about it that much! :)

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday August 11, @04:07PM (11 children)

      by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @04:07PM (#552391) Homepage Journal

      I disagree, this is more than just comment bait.

      Allow me to digress. I'm a geezer in IT, and I have always held the same attitude on diversity: treat everyone as an individual. I don't care about plumbing, eye color, hair length, or anything else. Is this person, as an individual

      • Competent? Can they do the job well enough that there is a net benefit to their presence?
      • Someone you can work with? Will they focus on the job, and let you focus on the job?

      So...30 or 40 years ago, treating people as individuals, not caring about gender or whatever, was considered rather liberal. Today, it's considered practically reactionary.

      That's why I find articles like this useful. Even five years ago, almost every tech forum read like the ArsTechnica comments do today: horror at the idea of the Diversity Memo, bowing to the SJW principles. Few would have dared comment positively, few would have dared criticize the holy (holey?) principles of diversity.

      The pendulum is swinging, and we see that it is swinging because many tech forums - like the green site, like Soyment - now have open discussions about the problems of diversity politics. SJW has become a pejorative. Progressive politics may still dominate the management and HR departments, but we can see progress.

      For the next few years, the desperate defense of SJW positions will get ever more strident, as the barriers continue to fall. In a few more years, writing a Diversity Memo will no longer get you fired. In another decade, I do believe that affirmative action will be seen for the evil it actually is.

      We will be able to follow this progress through the tone and content of the comments on articles and on sites like this one. And those articles and comments will influence the next generation, by helping to set the general atmosphere in which we do our work.

      Of course, in 20 years, the pendulum will have swung to far in some other direction. We won't get a meritocracy, we won't get people treated as individuals. Instead, we will get...something else. Some other way for some other group of unqualified people to gather and exert personal power over those of us who just love technology and want to get the job done.

      The fight will begin all over again. By then I'll be long retired, but I'll still be here and elsewhere, reading and commenting, hopefully applying some pico-newtons of force to re-center that damned pendulum...

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 2) by OrugTor on Friday August 11, @05:30PM (1 child)

        by OrugTor (5147) on Friday August 11, @05:30PM (#552448)

        I don't think I am in complete agreement with your position but I appreciate your taking the time to write a lucid, reasoned response.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 11, @06:12PM (4 children)

        by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday August 11, @06:12PM (#552473) Journal

        In another decade, I do believe that affirmative action will be seen for the evil it actually is.

        I think that will not happen. These companies are not going to get rid of diversity ideals. And indeed, the buzz is about a tiny minority inside Google agreeing with the memo. If there is opposition, they are either self-censoring themselves into silence or being marginalized by the press and Google's leadership.

        Instead, it will be a lot like it is today, except tech bros and sisters will automate large sectors of the economy out of their jobs, and then automate themselves out of their own jobs. We will achieve a rainbow of diversity in unemployment. The elites will institute universal basic income. Then bored and unemployed individuals will be driven insane until they use their skills to destroy the planet with diseases, AI, fusion bombs, x-ray weapons, etc. Fermi Paradox fucking solved.

        --
        [SIG] 04/14/2017: Soylent Upgrade v13 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by looorg on Friday August 11, @06:29PM (2 children)

          by looorg (578) on Friday August 11, @06:29PM (#552483)

          ... the buzz is about a tiny minority inside Google agreeing with the memo.

          I didn't really care about the leaks all that much to begin with but I looked for them today. Since most normal news outlets don't mention the actual information or link to it one had to visit other sites, such as Breitbar (1), they seem to be mostly just try to put another source in context or whatever you should call what they do. But from those leaks it seems like there are a lot of people in Google-middle-management (or similar) that are now compiling blacklists of people with divergent opinions and refuse to work with them. These are I assume the same people that are not in fear due to it becoming public knowledge.

          At the second link (2), a bit down the page there is a diagram showing a poll about the memo, it has at the time of the image being captured not that many respondents (only 278) but out of them it seems that about half disagree with the memo (mostly + strongly disagree 48,5%) while the "tiny" minority in agreement makes up about a bit over a third of the respondents (almost + strongly agree 36,3%). So there seems to be a bit more then a tiny minority inside the company that did agree with him, if we are to extrapolate out from this small number of respondents. It would be one thing if there was just a tiny percentage or two that had agreed with him. But it's somewhat different now that it seems to be 48.5 vs 36.3. Turns out there might be quite a few people that are "evil" or have divergent and undesirable opinions about "diversity" and affirmative action type programs.

          (1) http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/ [breitbart.com]
          (2) http://voxday.blogspot.se/2017/08/suppressing-dissent-at-google.html [blogspot.se]

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 11, @06:44PM (1 child)

            by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday August 11, @06:44PM (#552490) Journal

            I covered my ass in the next sentence, and I assume the (unscientific) poll was anonymous.

            --
            [SIG] 04/14/2017: Soylent Upgrade v13 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 2) by looorg on Friday August 11, @07:16PM

              by looorg (578) on Friday August 11, @07:16PM (#552514)

              I covered my ass in the next sentence, and I assume the (unscientific) poll was anonymous.

              It's a very problematic poll, but it's all there is at the moment. The size is small, for all we know thousands voted later and the numbers shifted dramatically. Then there is anonymity or not. I would gather it came from some internal G+ discussion. Is there really anonymity on G+ or their other debate systems? There might be the illusion of anonymity but I doubt it actually exists if someone with backend access wanted to know.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @09:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @09:06PM (#552584)

          Stop!, Stop! I can only get so hard!

          I will not matter though We are much further along to nuclear war than when we had Reagan

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 11, @06:47PM (2 children)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @06:47PM (#552492) Homepage Journal

        Exactly. As I pointed out already, nobody should give a fuck about anything except job performance. Can that midget code? Then give him a desk and throw his ass on a bar stool and let him get to work. Having worked for the military industrial complex, I have seen many bro-tier gay dudes and dykes who are strictly business and no-bullshit -- both of which could kick my ass in a split second.

        Interviewing somebody with pink or blue hair? Give 'em a chance. If they are strictly business, that's good. If they throw out a lot of bad dog-whistles out there like "diversity" and "tolerance" then reject. Because we're discussing business, not politics. Do you code? Let's see it. What kind of shit did you fix in the past, what kind of bathrooms did you clean or what kind of shrubbery did you trim? Oh, a joke about a sports team? That's a harmless distraction and totally acceptable.

        What needs to be done is to start a major technology firm catering to bros. Women and trannies will be welcome as long as they subscribe to the bro culture and be able to not only receive trash talk, but to dish it out. Parking lot fights will not be forbidden, but rather "team-building" exercises. Women, when given the ability to talk trash, have the upper-hand in calling a bro a micropenis'd limp-dick motherfucker.

         

        • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday August 11, @10:51PM

          by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday August 11, @10:51PM (#552627) Journal

          So basically you're saying that people should be evaluated on job performance, as long as they don't mess up the workplace culture?
          "work well, don't mess up our club"...sounds reasonable to me.

          The devil is, of course in the details: what is "work well", and when are you "messing up the club"?

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @05:29AM

          by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @05:29AM (#552750) Journal

          I think there's a difference between saying your code sucks and telling a person deserves to die etc. Same goes for parking lot fights.

          Because, how will good code survive if sucking snowflake code gets to stay because.. diversity in bugs & core dump.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:01PM (#552504)

        Of course, in 20 years, the pendulum will have swung to far in some other direction. We won't get a meritocracy, we won't get people treated as individuals. Instead, we will get...something else. Some other way for some other group of unqualified people to gather and exert personal power over those of us who just love technology and want to get the job done.

        So when are the Swiss going to return all that Nazi gold to the original owners?

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @04:34PM (2 children)

      Personally, I doubt this one will hit 100 comments, being the second follow-up. I could be wrong though.

      --
      Socialist: Someone who wants everything that you have. Except your job.
      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday August 15, @08:01PM (1 child)

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Tuesday August 15, @08:01PM (#554403) Journal

        I guess it went further than you expected?

        (yes, only replying to push the post count closer to 100. Considering self-replying to this reply just to push it further ;-)

        • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday August 15, @08:05PM

          by FakeBeldin (3360) on Tuesday August 15, @08:05PM (#554408) Journal

          Naah, that'd be very small of me. Moreover, it would only push the count up to 99, which still doesn't invalidate TMB's assumption.
          So let's not pollute SN with such comments.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 11, @02:50PM (22 children)

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday August 11, @02:50PM (#552305) Journal

    In an email to staff, Pichai explained that questions from employees had been leaked and that, in some cases, specific employees' identities were revealed, exposing them to harassment and threats.

    Good grief, SJWs!

    I saw something about somebody screaming cultural appropriation because some little girl wanted to have a Japanese tea ceremony themed birthday party. The girl's outfit looked authentic to me. All the SJWs screeching and harassing and threatening! Then finally somebody from Japan spoke up and said STFU! Culture is meant to be shared!

    I think I remember something about sombreros in the UK being cultural appropriation. The SJWs screeched and harassed and threatened and shut shit down. Cultural appropriation! Well, finally, somebody in a position to represent Spanish culture spoke up and said WTF! We passed out those sombreros ourselves to share our culture!

    Holy fucking shit. Humans have been swapping and sharing culture for thousands of years. Humans have shared and swapped culture with Neanderthals (probably)! And even with lizard people from the Thuban system (ok, only in my little universe)! Culture is meant to be swapped! Did we not learn anything in preschool?! Share! Share! Share! Culture is information and information wants to be… anyway I digress.

    So SJWs can't even get that right, a basic fucking thing that all (well, hopefully all, probably most) intelligent, social beings in the cosmos do.

    Why am I not surprised that a bunch of cisgendered SJWs with a monkey's intuition about gender (and sure as hell no practical experience as anything other than their assigned caste), who only know that they have something to be outraged about, without understanding any reasons whatsoever that could be put forth to explain why somebody should be outraged about the thing they're outraged about, are being outraged about shit they don't understand and don't want to understand?!

    (Oh my, did I just use cisgendered as a pejorative? I think I did. Well, fuck SJWs.)

    So glad I started using DuckDuckGo a couple years ago.

    --
    Should we say “free thinker” instead when we talk about “good feminists?” Feminism: against free thinking since 1979!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:59PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:59PM (#552319)

      Some days I wear a baseball cap...but I don't play baseball.

      How long before this gets me in trouble (with someone)??

      • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 11, @03:37PM (2 children)

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday August 11, @03:37PM (#552363) Journal

        Baseball caps are great. Imagine if there were no golf courses outside Scotland, and no sushi bars outside California. That would be sad.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11, @04:02PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @04:02PM (#552385)

          Imagine if there were no golf courses outside Scotland, and no sushi bars outside California. That would be sad.

          I completely disagree. While sushi is great and it'd suck to not have sushi bars in many places, we can really do without golf. I'm not a Millennial, but I'm with the Millennials on this one: golf sucks, and I'm happily doing my part to kill golf by not playing it.

        • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 11, @06:30PM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @06:30PM (#552484) Homepage Journal

          Official corporate baseball caps are boss as fuck when you're out on a field service mission in full company garb working outdoors. Yep, being paid to work outdoors, now that's what makes America fucking great!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:58PM (#552541)

        In Tejas, they would call you "All hat and no baseball." I think.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:03PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:03PM (#552325)

      Monkeys know gender perfectly well. It's some humans that seem to find it baffling. Speaking as an enlightened human person, on behalf of all monkeys in the world, I demand an apology.

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 11, @03:34PM (1 child)

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday August 11, @03:34PM (#552359) Journal

        Ah, shoot. I realized I was being insensitive to the monkeys who are users here (I think we have at least 2 or so, likely more) after I posted that. Thank you for calling me on that. My apologies. I'm sorry! Won't happen again!

        I agree, among the primates, it seems to be only humans who have these abstract concepts such as heresy. Too bad we probably won't know when it comes to Neanderthals or other extinct primates. Unless we have a few around here!

        What about houseflies? No, bees! IANABeekeeper, but from what I understand, gender works quite differently among insects. So, it could be the case that a bee would have great difficulty comprehending mammalian gender.

        --
        Should we say “free thinker” instead when we talk about “good feminists?” Feminism: against free thinking since 1979!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:03PM (#552611)

          Both of you are not giving the smarter monkeys enough credit. Chimps know all about jealousy, anger, hate, and warfare. Humans aren't as special as they think.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:22PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:22PM (#552348)

      Cultures are meant to be swapped and shared, not sold and exploited.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:36PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:36PM (#552361)

        Found the SJW! What do I win?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:20PM (#552619)

          A textbook to the face.

      • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday August 11, @04:39PM (3 children)

        by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @04:39PM (#552411)

        Whats the difference? Am I only allowed to have a japanese tea ceremony if I build a kiln and craft my own teapot, grow my own tea and turn it into matcha, and sew my own yukata to use in the ceremony? I suppose the cultural sharing goes away if I buy all three things first?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:26PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:26PM (#552621)

          If you truly don't understand the difference between cultural exchange and soul sucking profiteering then you're too far gone. Go back to your corporate overlords and swallow the propaganda good and deep.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:14AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:14AM (#552667)

            So Mexican guys can't sell me Mexican food?
            They should only give it away to keep it free from the taint of filthy lucre?
            Are they PROSTITUTING THEIR CULTURE?

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @02:09AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @02:09AM (#552696)

            Sounds like a fucking communist whining about not getting their grabby hands on "means of production" to me. "OH NO Someone else is making stuff, and selling for PROFIT!!! MUH COMMUNISM!" Go to Venezuela you fucking scum.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11, @03:59PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:59PM (#552382)

      Humans have shared and swapped culture with Neanderthals (probably)!

      According to DNA analysis, humans shared and swapped more than just culture with the Neanderthals....

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:18PM (#552442)

      It's always about your offended, triggered, gender-confused crotch, isn't it?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:27PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:27PM (#552446)

      Is it just me, or does "cultural appropriation" equate to plain racism. As in "You are not this color, so you can't do this!", "Christmas for Christians only, no Jews allowed!" or "only _real_ Americans are allowed to eat a hamburger!"

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday August 11, @07:51PM (3 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Friday August 11, @07:51PM (#552538)
        "Is it just me, or does "cultural appropriation" equate to plain racism. As in "You are not this color, so you can't do this!", "Christmas for Christians only, no Jews allowed!" or "only _real_ Americans are allowed to eat a hamburger!""

        I think you've got the thrust of it, yeah.

        The 'social justice' movement is the left wing of a resurgent racism/communitarianism impulse, with the right wing of course being the WN/neocon/alt-right loons.

        For instance collectively they seem to genuinely favor e.g. segregation. The motivation and justifications may be very different but there's more than a bit of agreement in there too. Both see the group assignment as the most important thing about human beings, far more important than their individual differences, even if they could never agree on which groups 'really exist.' (Hint, none of them.)

        "Social justice" is a code, it's the basic jumping-off point for the wholesale reforming of language so that morality may be inverted without setting off the normal alarm-bells in the super-ego.

        Justice is individual. "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers" nor "shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

        "Social justice" is the reverse of justice. It doesn't start with an individual who has certain rights and the responsibility to respect the rights of others. It starts with a series of bins, labeled with 'identities.' Depending on the individual there may be many or few bins, the left wing tendency is to splinter them into as many as possible while the right wing impulse is to consolidate into a handful of larger streams, but in many cases they still overlap, with for instance both sides seemingly swallowing the essence of traditional american 'racial' mirages; with black and white in center stage overshadowing all else. When deciding who should be hired or fired, who should be admitted or denied entry, who should be allowed to rent and who should be turned away, in all these things and more both of these groups agree that *which bin* they have sorted you into ahead of time not only is but *should be* an important factor, quite possibly the most important factor, in the outcome.

        One might say that there's just no justice in 'social justice.'
        --
        "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:29PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:29PM (#552623)

          It is enlightening to read the conservative perspective, no matter how wrong it is. Gotta be able to understand where these people are coming from if we are to have any chance of helping them.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 12, @05:17PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @05:17PM (#552904) Journal
            Well, don't hold back then. Give us your conservative perspective, no matter how wrong it is, so that we may be enlightened.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:24AM (#552673)

          Parent is so right.
          The racist non-white supremacists HATE race mixing because the sole source of their identity, their race, is diluted and becomes one with the hated "other."
          Segregation provides their lives with meaning. They are the other side of the coin opposite the white supremacists.

          Of course, if they give in to the forbidden temptation and mix with white people, they cannot bear to admit their kids are part white. They will call their kids "black", "of color", or what have you.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by EEMac on Friday August 11, @02:58PM (10 children)

    by EEMac (6423) on Friday August 11, @02:58PM (#552316)

    "We had hoped to have a frank, open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally. " [Source [forbes.com]]

    Hmmm. Suddenly Google can't respond if things are leaked with someone's name? Where was this position a few days ago?

    "some [employees] are worried that you cannot speak out at work freely. All of your voices and opinions matter...and I want to hear them." [Source [forbes.com]]

    So we can fire you for them.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:05PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:05PM (#552329)

      ^^ THIS!

      You are free to speak so long as it is to express your agreement with corporate policy.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 11, @03:22PM (7 children)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:22PM (#552349) Homepage Journal

        Politics does not belong at work. Period. I remember at a gig a few years ago we discussed the election and the whole department literally broke out in a shouting match (with me laughing at them on the side). It was nasty.

        Goddamn, I don't understand why encouraging political debate at work is allowed anywhere. They're fucking Google. They could have a no-politics policy and people would still be jacking their dicks to get in.

        If I ran a company I would make "no politics" my mantra. Actually, I'd hire all rural Whites, because they don't start crying when they hear opinions counter to their own.

        • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 11, @04:14PM (3 children)

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday August 11, @04:14PM (#552398) Journal

          It seems to me the difficulty is that this isn't the regular sports team red vs. blue politics (where we get all emotional and crap and then the bodies in Washington, DC rotate and nothing of substance changes, but abortions might be easier or more difficult to get or an LGBT person may have an easier or more difficult time considering serving their country in the military or what-have-you).

          I'm guessing that the guy who originally spoke up and got fired either had been personally affected by Google's policies or was concerned about others who had been (possibly in ways that may violate anti-discrimination laws). When it's policies that affect one's job, I think that makes it a valid subject of discussion.

          I know personally what it's like to be on the receiving end of bigotry from those who wish a womyn-born-womyn hegemony, and it sucks. Big time. Because you know that what you were accused of is untrue, what you are being punished for or the reason you're being held back is nothing more than the letter on your birth certificate—you are acutely and painfully aware that had that letter been different, you would have been praised because of your accomplishments and promoted/rewarded—, and when you try to talk about it, you encounter so much circular logic that it drives you insane. You are told that what happened to you is simply “unpossible,” and your account is found contradictory to the cosmic laws of the universe, meaning only that you must be a liar and must be treble guilty of whatever charge you were accused of and punished for in the first place.

          Practically speaking, finding a different employer is probably the best way forward. Google seems to be eager to help this process along by firing anybody stupid enough to point out that brain gender is a thing and our problem with finding the right incantations to use during the ritual to make cisfemale programmed precipitate out of the æther might be more complicated than a matter of all assigned to the male gender caste sexually harassing womyn-born-womyn out of the field. To speak to your point, Google does not fire people who assert gender essentialism, and they encourage working from the “misogynerd” theory that all 3.6 billion assigned males on the planet are engaged in a grand conspiracy to actively and intentionally sexually harass womyn-born-womyn out of tech jobs.

          --
          Should we say “free thinker” instead when we talk about “good feminists?” Feminism: against free thinking since 1979!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:18PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:18PM (#552516)

            myn born myn have actually tried instigating more women to go into tech. Or that we didn't know dozens of women in grade, middle, or high school who knew their way around a computer, maybe even something older than a PC. And it isn't just that those womyn had *NO* interest in tech careers for reasons completely unrelated to the potential for douchey bro culture, mostly centered on the fast moving and financially lucrative startup ecosystem of the 90s through 00s.

            Seriously, getting women interested in tech was like pulling teeth until casual games came out, and even then most of them only wanted social networking, casual games, and maybe a dating app. See how many have actually learned to use a computer/device more proficiently than that. Or offer to explain it to them and see how long it takes them to start screaming at you it is too complicated and don't fill my brain with useless nerd things! Seriously, whether my mother, my cousin, my female college schoolmates, or just random co-workers, almost none of them that were not already predisposed to the inner workings of tech as a child want anything to do with it as an adult, and even some of them that were, no longer are.

            While we're on the subject, why is nobody complaining about women and non-nerdy (but also non-intellectual) men appropriating and diluting nerd/geek culture in order to have social (media?) 'cred'? If we're supposed to be culturally, sexually, etc tolerant of their identities, why are they not required to stop 'slant-face' or 'black-face'ing our culture with their superficial stereotyped mockeries of *OUR* cultural identities?

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 11, @07:56PM (1 child)

              by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday August 11, @07:56PM (#552540) Journal

              Or offer to explain it to them and see how long it takes them to start screaming at you it is too complicated and don't fill my brain with useless nerd things!

              Well, my experience is limited to a professional setting where I had been asked to “train” a womyn-born-womyn in “programming.” After trying this several times, failing, giving it one last effort, which I had thought with great relief was succeeding (yay! I'm finally a *good girl*! Maybe feminism will see me as a legitimate woman now that I've shown I'm a *good girl*!) only to find from that person that they had a male brain! %$#@argh!…,

              I believe the average time to eye-gloss-over given 1 hour sessions either once per week or three times per week, is about 2 months, regardless of the frequency of session.

              I say womyn-born-womyn so much because I have found that trans women simply do not have these “barriers” with technology. Trans men are the case study we need here. Trans men I've worked with have the exact same problems with maths as womyn-born-womyn. $y = mx + b$ is incomprehensible and inaccessible to many womyn-born-womyn and trans men alike.

              I try to avoid maths, because, well, always remember that math is hard and Newton's Principia Mathematica is a rape manual [wikipedia.org]. If you want to achieve eye-gloss-over in under 2 sessions, focus on maths. That was one of the very first mistakes I made: talking about things in mathematical language. I needed to stall eye-gloss-over for as long as possible, and I found that no matter what, I could not stall it indefinitely. It is not a problem of simple ignorance. We are dealing with something irrational. “Math is hard” is something that these people have incorporated into their identities so deeply, that they would rather that basic algebra remain forever inaccessible to them. Nobody wants to put their familiar, learned, comfortable gidentities at risk by doing something that they have learned since a very young age was something that people with similar identities (a certain group identity perhaps) simply do not do.

              Engaging in maths for many of these people, I imagine, is similar to somebody socialized as the male gender putting on a dress or skirt. This is something that one simply does! not! do! eternity! wrath! unthinkable! burning! firey! damnation! AIDS! abomination! faggot! full! stop!

              So what are my findings? (This is part of the answer key I was going to post last night before, uh, line noise, that was it, prevented me from posting it.) People socialized as the female gender experience great difficulty with mathematical subjects. This is not because the female brain is not capable of mathematics. This is not because the female brain is less capable than the male brain at mathematics. This is something, something very tangible, that our culture, specifically (but not only), reliably (but not always) does to these people, regardless of whether they have a male or female brain.

              But I don't expect anybody to figure that out, because why the fuck would anybody ever fucking examine the fucking experiences of “gender confused” people to determine why there are no cisfemale programmers.

              --
              Should we say “free thinker” instead when we talk about “good feminists?” Feminism: against free thinking since 1979!
              • (Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @05:45AM

                by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @05:45AM (#552759) Journal

                I remember a maths professor noticed that the girls in his classes had small breasts. And the size of those tend to be dependent on estrogen levels. You could try to select for womyn-born-womyn with small breasts when attempting to teach programming and see if it improves the success rate.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday August 11, @05:19PM (2 children)

          by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Friday August 11, @05:19PM (#552443)

          Kinda hard to hold that position once your employer has openly installed a Political Officer and from the look of things in the sunlight this incident has shone into Google, a pretty high percentage of the employees seem to believe making blacklists and other efforts to gain total political control of the organization is their primary duty, not producing the Evil that Google hired them to do.

          This is the Impossibility of SJW Convergence being demonstrated for the world in real time. As an organization devotes ever more attention and resources toward Social Justice it ceases to be able to carry out the function it was created for.

          Then there is an entirely different problem with Google. Use their own search engine to look at how involved in politics, both U.S. and world, Google the corporation and the high officers are. To now attempt to make a claim to be exempt from the negative consequences of their political activities would be a demand their opponents would be foolish to grant them. As one of those enemies I say "Kick em while they are down. Finish them!"

          Oh, and the Alt-Right is already anticipating the counter attack that will come. Remember that Google knows all. Expect "anonymous insiders" to begin selective leaking to dox anyone who pisses them off. It would tick off two of the Laws of SJW, Doubling down and projecting. Exposure is the one thing all Progs fear most. This will be the one thing that Google could do that would destroy them quickly, we expect them to do it because they really are that dumb.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:17PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:17PM (#552553)

            They are probably already coming for you, jmorris! Run, jmorris, run! Where you going to go?

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @06:13AM

            by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @06:13AM (#552766) Journal

            I wonder if we will see employees sue Alphabet Inc. (Google) for being not diverse enough. Then others to sue them for being diverse. While the rest enjoy the popcorn and flames.

            So far the GOOG share has since August 7 went from 914.39 to 929.51 US$ a 1.63% drop in 5 days.
            Alphabet Inc went from 945.75 to 930.09 a 1.66% drop.
            As a comparison United Airlines [soylentnews.org] beating-passenger-share has since April 13 went from 70 to 66 US$ a 5.7% drop.

            I think this spectacle also shows why the "nothing to hide" is so hollow. Suppose a person working at google is exposed to have the wrong opinions. Upon exposure they will be IRL flamed and fired.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:21AM (#552671)

      Aside from the fact that the memo was apparently solicited by Google's management, at least one MBA played a very major part in blowing it all out of proportion:

      Even Google’s new ‘VP of Diversity’, Danielle Brown, criticized the memo because it ‘advanced incorrect assumptions about gender’; I was impressed to see that her Michigan State B.A. in Business and her U. Michigan M.B.A. qualify her to judge the scientific research.

      http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ [quillette.com]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday August 11, @03:45PM (17 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:45PM (#552368) Homepage Journal

    One of the questions leaked was apparently:

    "The doc asserted that Google has a lower bar for diversity candidates,” reads one question ranked highly by employees in an internal voting system. “This is hurting minority Googlers because it creates the perception that they are less qualified. What can we do to combat that perception?"

    They can't do anything, because the perception is absolutely correct. The definition of affirmative action is accepting less-qualified candidates. Which inevitably means that all members of the group are looked at skeptically, because you have no way of knowing who is really qualified, and who is a diversity hire.

    Affirmative action creates a hostile work environment for the very minorities it is meant to help. Good intentions over good results, typical SJW stuff.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 1) by crafoo on Friday August 11, @05:09PM (3 children)

      by crafoo (6639) on Friday August 11, @05:09PM (#552434)

      I know what we can do. We can embark on a complex and compulsory campaign to stamp out wrong-think. The key is to infiltrate public education and entertainment media. Black is white. Up is down. Science is sexist and racist.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:24PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:24PM (#552520)

        My whole grade school life was highly conservative. In fact the only part that wasn't was my parents, and the occasional openly liberal household/kids I went to school with (but you didn't discuss that at school, even if they did.)

        People also tend to forget all the anti-Russian/Communist propaganda from 50s-80s grade school, and our indoctrination against having our papers checked travelling inside our own country, and yet what happens today? Mandatory checks to fly on an airplane, random checks to travel by train, or bus, or boat, without ever hitting a border. TSA/VIPR is America's Communist paper checkers, and yet the largest push for that apparatus came from CONSERVATIVES (with a healthy dose of bipartisan authoritarianism), the very same ones who just a few decades before were reviling that exact sort of activity and pushing that agenda in schools.

        Oh America, your hypocrisy runs deep.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @11:44PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @11:44PM (#552640)

          Oh shut the fuck up, fag. All those checks are in place because we keep getting attacked by the Islamic terrorists that Liberals love to import here by the millions.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @07:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @07:54AM (#552793)

            Love to import because you love to take their . . . Oh crap, AC, everyone knows you are an Islamic refugee, filled with self-hatred and desire for forbbiden sex. Yes, in your country the used to say, "For children, a woman; for pleasure, a young boy; but for sheer ecstacy, a Melon!" But now, melons are in short supply. It is the closeted gays in the Republican party who are importing the poftas from the areas of combat. All those soldiers, stationed in areas where the "Peshawar School of Thought" prevails, and you do not think they would not want to bring their "translator" back with them? Oh American, the home of the Free and the Gay!

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 11, @08:12PM (12 children)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday August 11, @08:12PM (#552550) Journal

      The definition of affirmative action is accepting less-qualified candidates.

      This is flat out wrong, so wrong that one cannot but suspect that it is intentional. Why do you lie, brad?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:58PM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @08:58PM (#552578)

        Help us out. I beseech thee! If affirmative action is not that, then what is affirmative action? Am I thinking about the same concept that you are thinking about? Do you have any conjecture about what the confusion might be?

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 11, @09:27PM (10 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday August 11, @09:27PM (#552595) Journal

          If there are equally qualified candidates, preference should be given to the minority candidate. I know this is not how racists and "reverse discriminationists" and poor sexist (former)Googlers see it, but that is the program, and the law. Of course, if you do not know this, you probably were not hired in the first place, because of Affirmative Action! (Remember, equally qualified, Republicans rarely meet this standard.)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @10:27PM (#552622)

            Thanks! I think that answers my questions.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @06:19AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @06:19AM (#552769)

            And when they are other qualified more candidates, the minority candidate shall be hired regardless. :P

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12, @07:40AM (1 child)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 12, @07:40AM (#552792) Journal

              My god, you are stupid, too stupid to work in my organization, which hires hundreds each year. OK, we will go to the Law:

              Mind you, if you read this, and you hold Federal Contracts, you may be liable irregardless (- did you see that? irregardless used properly?) for discriminatory employment practices, even if you or your family never owned slaves, you white privileged bastard:

              §60-2.10 General purpose and contents of affirmative action programs.

              (a) Purpose. (1) An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools. Affirmative action programs also include action-oriented programs. If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization. Effective affirmative action programs also include internal auditing and reporting systems as a means of measuring the contractor's progress toward achieving the workforce that would be expected in the absence of discrimination.

              https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.2&idno=41 [ecfr.gov]

              See? Equal opportunity. If you lose under such circumstances, I can only surmise that you are a substandard employee candidate. You see, it is no longer the case that no one was ever fired for hiring white. We are coming for your incompetence, whitey. Be prepared to compete on a level field without your white privilege! Sucks to be you.

              • (Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Saturday August 12, @06:48PM

                by Hawkwind (3531) on Saturday August 12, @06:48PM (#552927)
                To be clear, in California gender and/or ethnicity cannot be used as a tie-breaker. 41 CFR60-2 does not give cover for this type of preference, a mistake our legal office has to point out frequently. May be of interest to those in CA, Prop 209 allows affirmative action where:

                (e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209 [wikipedia.org]
                 
                Cheers

          • (Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday August 12, @10:28PM (5 children)

            by slinches (5049) on Saturday August 12, @10:28PM (#553001)

            Yeah that may be the intent, but how often are there perfectly equally qualified candidates who only differ by race and/or gender? Considering that to be effective affirmative action would have to cover more than this almost non-existent scenario, how much better does a majority candidate have to be to get the job? How much discrimination is fair?

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12, @11:38PM (4 children)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 12, @11:38PM (#553030) Journal

              Enough until there is no discrimination! For the USA, it is making up for a few hundred years of genocide and slavery and racism. It is like Aristotle said about straightening a stick, you have to over-bend it the other way for it to come back true.

              • (Score: 2) by slinches on Monday August 14, @07:22PM (3 children)

                by slinches (5049) on Monday August 14, @07:22PM (#553809)

                How do we know when to stop over-bending, then? What are the criteria that say we have corrected the initial bend without going too far the other way?

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 14, @08:10PM (2 children)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Monday August 14, @08:10PM (#553822) Journal

                  Kind of hard to go too far the wrong way, without subjecting people with white skin to some three hundred years of chattel slavery. But just enough until structural discrimination ceases to exist. And of course the pathetic whining of the racists is just a sign that Affirmative Action is having the desired effect. America is on the right course. Just need to identify all these Neo-Nazis, KKKers, and Alt-right racists, and publically shame them and get them fired from their jobs and booted off Google or Go-Daddy hosting! That part of bending the stick is easy to recognize as correct.

                  • (Score: 2) by slinches on Monday August 14, @10:16PM (1 child)

                    by slinches (5049) on Monday August 14, @10:16PM (#553862)

                    I just don't buy the premise that you can correct discrimination with more discrimination. Even if you do succeed in leveling the outcomes, why would it not breed more of the same hatred that you're trying to eliminate? It's the same concept as the war on terror causing more terrorism as bystanders get caught in the cross-fire. In that case, doubling down on the discrimination will only give the racists and misogynists more disenfranchised and angry people to recruit and you'll never have a truly egalitarian society.

                    Instead, I think that if we promote inclusion and understanding and provide assistance to all of those who need it, structural racism/sexism will fade away on its own. Stop giving credence to the idea that race and gender are meaningful discriminators and the idea will fade into obscurity, simply because it's wrong.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Friday August 11, @05:16PM (5 children)

    by looorg (578) on Friday August 11, @05:16PM (#552439)

    Hardly all that surprising. One can assume that the outraged crowd that had no, or few, issues with decrying the memo, and doxing the author, are now afraid to speak out due to the same thing happening to them. The people that agreed with the memo probably know better then to open their mouth in a public venue by now, certainly so since the axeman-CEO and the diversity-Commissar would be in attendance. After all it didn't go so well for that last guy that had a divergent opinion. So what kind of meeting would it really have been? Some sort of feelgood virtue signaling gathering where the boss told his employee that all is good in the hood.

    He (Pichai) said it's "not OK" for employees to feel that they can't "safely express their views (especially those with a minority viewpoint)." (cnet article)

    Hypocrisy much? The guy that was clearly holding a minority view at the company got shitcanned when he did it.

    "Can we get an update on progress toward identifying leakers?" one employee posted, saying multiple Googlers had their team pages leaked to alt-right sites, resulting in a death threat in one instance. (cnn article)

    Ah sweet paranoia! Time for a good ol' witch-hunt. So the "snowflakes" don't feel safe anymore, when do they ever?, and the people that agreed with Damore don't feel safe either since he got fired and their co-workers clearly hate them. The head of the company doesn't feel safe either and are afraid of leaks, also the company reputation is currently being dragged in the mud. I guess Brown will be busy for some time rooting out dissenters, making the Goolag safe for the sensitive crowd. I recon the interesting part is that Google has in part been almost leak free for years, I guess that is rapidly changing due to this and how they decided to act. No amount of luxury perks at work buys silence forever and under any and all circumstances.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @06:26AM (4 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @06:26AM (#552771) Journal

      Perhaps the larger problem is that Google might get a hiring problem. They essentially now have a global sign saying "We hate nerds and our work environment is hostile".

      • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday August 12, @01:13PM (3 children)

        by looorg (578) on Saturday August 12, @01:13PM (#552835)

        Perhaps the larger problem is that Google might get a hiring problem. They essentially now have a global sign saying "We hate nerds and our work environment is hostile".

        That sounds like it could be a likely outcome. It's not like Google is going to run out of candidates anytime soon but the pool of candidates could start to become seriously skewed, from the sound of it Google has become like SJW-central already so it could already have happened. From information that has gotten out they have always looked at the extreme end of the hiring curve, the exceptional individuals. Now all that might remain are the exceptional then that also fall into the left of the political spectrum (or GAL-people if you prefer the GAL-TAN-spectrum instead), clearly diminishing their pool of potential talent. Nothing they have said or done so far have alleviated that issue. Which could severely hurt them in the future. Once they could hire people with just the fact that they are Google -- nice paycheck, stock-options and a lot of work-perks like lunches and a "relaxed college atmosphere". But if that all comes at the cost of having to buy and obey their "progressive and diversity agenda" it will or might turn people away, after all there are most likely options that offer similar perks but are not going to be in your face agenda wise.

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @07:10PM (2 children)

          by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @07:10PM (#552931) Journal

          What's GAL-TAN?

          Any ideas for companies that offer the same Google pay and perks?

          This will be interesting. To see if the founders brings out the axe and how their tarnished image will affect the companies capability to perform. Must be frustrating to see their creation go south because of sour work climate.

          • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday August 12, @08:46PM (1 child)

            by looorg (578) on Saturday August 12, @08:46PM (#552959)

            GAL-TAN (Green-Alternative-Libertarian vs Traditional-Authoritarian-Nationalist) is a proposed replacement, or supplement, to the Left-Right-Scale of political views used by some in the political- and social-sciences. Instead of being two-dimensional (left vs right), it adds another dimension (economic left vs economic right on the x-axis, authoritarian vs libertarian on the y-axis). So you get four quadrants (Autho-Left, Autho-Right, Lib-Left, Lib-Right) instead of just being left or right, they are trying to position people better -- how do you want to spend the money and on what and how much rules and nationalism do you like. That said I'm not to sure about it, it's been around for about a decade and it has not caught on with the common man. Also when you put various political parties in there things usually don't change all that much. Basically all the "good" that like diversity, multiculturalism and wanting to blow all the tax money on that gets put in one corner while the once that don't like that and wants to spend all the tax money on defence and law and order get put in the other.

            Considering some have already started to write op-ed pieces about Pichai resigning or being fired I guess something is brewing. It's not all glorious articles where people suck up to the mighty Google anymore. But perhaps this won't last.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html [nytimes.com]

            I'm fairly certain that a lot of the similar companies offer similar perks. But then they are also similar in their desires or thought regarding all that might be wrong with Google. So I'm somewhat at a loss really.

            • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @09:53PM

              by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @09:53PM (#552984) Journal

              I'll agree that the political dimensions have increased. Now that is something the binary party system of US will have trouble dealing with. The general fault of the GAL movement is lacking order to prevent chaos and to realize real world limits.

              I would say that employing traditional and authoritarian system rules usually prevents people from being flexible and to do development either as a person or in a production environment. But that doesn't mean they lack value, however when questioning them or altering the rules. It's necessary to make a systemic analyze as to why they exist in the first place. Sometimes the best move is to not play. Right now it seems we get just two polarities without any sense.
              Which seems very much like some divide and conquer being orchestrated.

              Being nationalist is very much paying attention to self preservation. But letting that getting in the way of being flexible would be self defeating.

              As always one has to delve into the circumstances and inner working of rules and virtues to understand them from a holistic and systematic view such they can be improved rather than changed just for the sake of it. Not much different from making computer systems work.
              The current projectory contains a serious backlash because the positions and policies of many players are simply unsustainable. If no conscious and good macro steering is done the most probably fall out is corrective actions taken on the micro level which will result in a chaotic macro level.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @09:01PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @09:01PM (#552581)

    What where we talking about again?

    I guess I can participate

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12, @10:13PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Saturday August 12, @10:13PM (#552993) Journal

      Quick TD;LR as also found this story a bit confusing when I first read about it:

        * Google executes discriminatory policies for some time against some groups to compensate other perceived disadvantaged groups.

        * The engineer: James Damore - Writes a scientifically correct but politically incorrect memo. That analyzes differences between gender, race and career outcomes with remedy recommendations and publishes it on a internal Google message board (2017-08-07 ?).

        * New vice president for diversity, integrity and governance: Danielle Brown - sends a statement to staff condemning James.

        * CEO: Sundar Pichai - sends out a company wide note that portions of the memo violate the code of conduct and fires James.

        * Julian Assange publicly offers James a job.

        * An all employee meeting inside Google is cancelled due to perceived threats.

      My take: The management is incapable of handling the corporate culture and now the train wreck got it's own momentum is very hard to control. Permanent damage has already occurred.

      The original memo: Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber [diversitymemo.com] original [diversitymemo.com].
      More.. [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 2) by SacredSalt on Friday August 11, @10:22PM

    by SacredSalt (2772) on Friday August 11, @10:22PM (#552620)

    Apparently, the race to becoming Altavista will not be televised nor streamed.

(1)